I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

Obama Inc.'s Epic Fail-Big Cash For Big Access Disappoints Believers

A New York Times piece reported that those willing to fork over $500,000 or more to Organization For Action (OFA)—the newly minted, tax-exempt ‘social welfare group’ that, in its previous life, had been the highly effective grass-roots Obama campaign organization, Organization For America—would be invited to attend quarterly meetings with the president as a reward for their generosity.

While I could envision how an over-amped fundraiser with little knowledge of the rules of the game might make such an error, I was certain that OFA would immediately step forward to set the record straight, denounce any such activity if it had occurred and insure that it would not happen again.

After all, promising such a benefit would come dangerously close to selling influence—something that President Obama has long condemned loudly, frequently and with considerable commitment.

When the organization did come forward to issue a statement refuting the charge, I breathed a sigh of relief—relief that would not last as there appeared to be just too much evidence that these offers had, indeed, been made to the political whales who write the big checks.

“According to a source who had been briefed on the ask, donors expect benefits similar to those granted during the campaign — including access to Obama and top White House officials — but had not been offered an explicit “menu” tying amounts to access.”

Bob Edgar, president of the non-partisan political watchdog organization, Common Cause, didn’t buy the OFA denial, saying that “It just smells. The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.”

Even MSNBC’s Chuck Todd took issue with what he believed to be a pretty nasty transgression on the part of OFA and the White House, noting, “This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access. It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

The revulsion—even from those whom we perceive to be supporters of the president or those who can be considered objective in their assessment—is completely understandable given that the taming of the special interests and special access that pollutes Washington was always at the very core of the ‘change we could believe in’.

Still, many —including myself—would acknowledge that changing business as usual in our nation’s capital is far more easily said than done. And while the sentiment behind the Obama vision of how things should work in Washington was a sentiment we could feel good about, in a world where Citizens United has given his opponents access to seemingly unlimited sums of cash to be used as a club with which to beat down the White House agenda, it is not difficult to understand why the president has found his vision to be a difficult one to execute.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I wouldn’t get carried away if I were you. Every president breaks campaign promises-I would defy you to find one, Democrat or Republican-who has not. This is different. And we should take note that Obama, himself, did not do this. This was a caution to those surrounding him as to what we expect of them. If you choose to use this article to justify positions-positions I do not share-you are missing the point of the article.

I just don’t like it period. I don’t care what the reason is, there is no suitable reason for pay to access a sitting President. I want the same level of access, but I have no interest in paying for it. It gets nasty anytime somebody shows up with a big wad of money in their pocket, or cash filled envelopes.

I thought that sort of thing was kept to the State Legislature level. However, I’ve got to remember Jack Abramoff served time and he was known for handing out envelopes on the House floor. But he needs to come to Texas where payoffs are hefty and unseen. Governors in Texas never leave office poor and don’t usually serve any time.